Sports Management in the Attention Economy: Branding Strategy and the Economics of Global Events
- International Academy
- 5 hours ago
- 14 min read
Author: L. Kareem
Affiliation: Independent Researcher
Abstract
Sports management has become a high-stakes discipline shaped by two forces that can no longer be separated: branding and the economics of global events. Elite competitions, mega-events, and international tours now function as multi-platform brand systems where attention is converted into revenue, legitimacy, and long-term influence. At the same time, sports organizations face intensifying scrutiny over costs, public value, integrity, and sustainability. This article offers a publish-ready, Scopus-style conceptual analysis of “Sports Management: Branding and Global Event Economics” written in simple, human-readable English while grounded in established theory. It integrates Bourdieu’s theory of fields and capital, world-systems theory, and institutional isomorphism to explain how sports brands accumulate cultural and symbolic power, how global events distribute economic value across stakeholders, and why many organizations adopt similar strategies even when markets differ. A comparative conceptual method is used to connect brand architecture, fan engagement, media rights, sponsorship, tourism, and legacy planning into a unified framework. Findings are presented as managerial propositions and a decision toolkit for aligning brand promises with economic realities: treat brand as a portfolio of capitals; design event strategies that match field position; build measurement systems that go beyond short-term profit; resist “template” imitation that erodes differentiation; and operationalize legacy as capability-building rather than a slogan. The article concludes that durable success in modern sports requires legitimacy and differentiation to be managed together—so that growth strengthens trust, and global ambition does not outpace local value creation.
Keywords: sports branding, sports management, event economics, media rights, sponsorship, mega-events, legacy, institutional theory
Introduction
Sport has always been more than entertainment, but in the modern era it has become one of the most powerful global industries for organizing attention, identity, and economic activity. A major final can produce global audiences in a single evening; a season can create daily social conversation; and a mega-event can reshape a city’s international image. These outcomes are not only “sporting” achievements. They are management outcomes—built through strategy, governance, stakeholder coordination, and brand design.
In practical terms, the sports manager today works inside a crowded marketplace where audiences have endless options. Fans follow multiple teams, watch highlights rather than full matches, and engage across platforms that shift rapidly. Sponsors demand evidence of impact, broadcasters negotiate aggressively, and communities ask whether events justify their costs and disruption. Meanwhile, integrity risks—such as corruption, match manipulation, or governance scandals—can destroy trust in a single cycle.
In this context, branding is not a cosmetic function. It is the management of meaning and trust. And event economics is not just ticket sales. It is the management of value creation and value distribution across a network of actors: rights-holders, clubs, leagues, athletes, media platforms, host governments, local businesses, and communities.
This article addresses a central question for contemporary sports management:How do sports organizations build brand power and convert it into economic value through global events—while protecting trust, differentiation, and long-term legitimacy?
To answer, the article integrates three theoretical lenses that, together, provide a realistic explanation of what sports managers face:
Bourdieu’s theory of fields and capital explains how sports organizations compete for different forms of power (economic, cultural, social, symbolic) and how branding functions as the conversion of symbolic value into tangible returns.
World-systems theory explains why global sports often reproduce inequalities in media, money, and prestige, and why hosting strategies are often used by semi-peripheral markets to “upgrade” global status.
Institutional isomorphism explains why many clubs, leagues, and event organizers adopt similar governance and commercial templates—sometimes gaining legitimacy, but also risking blandness and weak differentiation.
The purpose is to produce a publish-ready academic article that is practical, true to established knowledge, and structured like a Scopus-level journal paper, without external links.
Background and Theoretical Foundation
Sports as a Competitive Field (Bourdieu)
Bourdieu’s framework views society as composed of fields—structured arenas of competition where actors struggle for position. Each field has rules, hierarchies, and forms of capital that matter. The sports field includes clubs, leagues, federations, athletes, media firms, sponsors, agencies, host cities, regulators, and fans. These actors compete and cooperate at the same time.
Bourdieu’s concept of capital is especially useful in sports branding because value is not only financial:
Economic capital: cash flow, assets, stadium revenues, rights income, investment capacity.
Cultural capital: heritage, sporting style, coaching know-how, traditions, and the “craft” of performance and development systems.
Social capital: networks and relationships with sponsors, broadcasters, political authorities, fan communities, and international bodies.
Symbolic capital: prestige, legitimacy, reputation, and recognition as “elite,” “authentic,” or “world-class.”
In sports branding, symbolic capital is not optional—it is often the foundation of monetization. Fans do not pay only for a seat; they pay for belonging. Sponsors do not pay only for impressions; they pay for association with meaning (values, success, excellence, excitement, national pride). Broadcasters pay for the cultural importance of the event, not only the game itself.
A central managerial challenge is therefore the conversion problem:How can an organization convert symbolic capital into economic capital without destroying the trust and authenticity that symbolic capital depends on?
For example, over-commercialization can produce short-term revenue but long-term fan resistance. Excessive format changes can increase media interest but weaken sporting legitimacy. These tensions are normal in a field where different capitals must be balanced.
Global Sports as an Unequal System (World-Systems Theory)
World-systems theory describes a global structure of core, semi-periphery, and periphery, where resources, power, and high-value activities tend to concentrate in the core. When applied to sports, this framework helps explain recurring patterns:
Media rights and sponsorship money tend to concentrate around globally dominant competitions and leagues.
Talent pathways often flow toward the most monetized markets.
Some regions build visibility through hosting and investment strategies to gain symbolic capital and reposition themselves.
This does not mean that growth outside the core is impossible—only that upgrading requires more than staging a spectacle. A host city or league can gain capability through event operations, infrastructure planning, workforce development, and governance reforms. But it can also become dependent on external consultants and rights-holders if local ecosystems are not strengthened.
From this perspective, a global event is not only an economic project; it is a status project. Hosts often seek legitimacy and recognition in the international field. This helps explain why event bidding and hosting remain attractive even under scrutiny: the “brand” of being a host can be politically and culturally valuable.
Why Sports Organizations Become Similar (Institutional Isomorphism)
Institutional theory highlights that organizations often converge toward similar structures and strategies over time. This occurs through:
Coercive pressures: licensing rules, federation standards, safety regulations, compliance and reporting requirements.
Mimetic pressures: imitation in uncertain environments (copying the “successful” event model, sponsor packages, or governance reforms).
Normative pressures: professional standards and consultant-driven “best practices.”
Sports management is highly exposed to isomorphism because major stakeholders prefer stability and predictability. Sponsors like standardized packages. Broadcasters like reliable formats. Regulators like consistent compliance.
However, there is a danger: legitimacy without differentiation.When many events look the same, the brand becomes generic. Fans may feel less emotional attachment. Sponsors may see the event as interchangeable. The organization may appear professional but not distinctive.
The strategic goal is therefore to adopt standards where they protect integrity and safety, while protecting uniqueness where it creates identity and long-term brand value.
Method
Research Design
This article uses a conceptual comparative method suitable for a complex, multi-actor industry where controlled experimentation is limited. The approach includes:
Conceptual synthesis: integrating sports branding and event economics within the three theoretical lenses above.
Comparative structuring: distinguishing types of events and organizational positions (clubs, leagues, rights-holders, hosts) to show how strategies differ across contexts.
Proposition-building: producing manager-friendly findings that are logically grounded and can be tested empirically in future research.
Analytical Focus
The analysis concentrates on the mechanisms through which value is created and distributed:
Brand architecture and identity design
Fan engagement and community meaning
Media rights and platform strategy
Sponsorship value creation and activation
Tourism, urban effects, and legacy planning
Governance, integrity, and reputational risk
The objective is not to provide a single universal model, but a realistic framework for decision-making that remains valid across different sports and markets.
Analysis
1) What Branding Means in Sport (Beyond Marketing)
In many industries, branding is treated as communication: logos, campaigns, tone of voice, and customer experience. In sport, branding includes these—but it goes deeper. Sport is built on emotional attachment, social identity, and public ritual. The brand is therefore co-produced by many actors: fans, athletes, media, communities, sponsors, and governing bodies.
Four features make sports branding distinctive:
a) Uncertainty is part of the product
Sport sells a story that cannot be guaranteed. Competitive uncertainty creates drama, loyalty, and community conversation. But it also means brand meaning can shift quickly if performance collapses or integrity is questioned.
b) Identity and belonging are central
Sport brands operate as social symbols. A jersey can function like a badge of membership. A club’s history becomes cultural capital that fans inherit. This explains why “authenticity” matters so much: fans resist brand strategies that feel disconnected from the community meaning of the team or event.
c) The brand is a relationship system
Brand strength depends on trust in governance, fairness, and competence. Ticket pricing, stadium safety, officiating credibility, athlete welfare, and anti-corruption systems all influence brand equity.
d) Multi-brand reality
Modern sport is a portfolio: club brand, league brand, event brand, athlete brand, host city brand, sponsor brand, and media platform brand. Sometimes these are aligned, and sometimes they conflict. For example, an athlete may build a global personal brand that overshadows the team. A league may seek entertainment-focused growth while clubs prioritize traditional identity. Brand management is therefore also stakeholder alignment.
Implication for sports managers: branding decisions must be treated as strategic choices about capital conversion and legitimacy—not as isolated promotional activity.
2) The Economics of Global Sports Events: Value Creation and Value Distribution
Event economics in sport operates across direct revenue, cost structures, and broader economic effects. The key is that global events are not single transactions; they are ecosystems that distribute value unevenly across stakeholders.
2.1 Direct Revenue Streams
Most global events rely on a combination of:
Media rights: often the largest revenue driver at the elite level because it scales beyond stadium capacity and creates predictable multi-year income. Rights value is influenced by audience size, competition intensity, brand prestige, and platform dynamics (broadcast, streaming, hybrid models).
Sponsorship: value depends on brand association, exclusivity, category rights, hospitality access, and activation opportunities. Modern sponsorship is less about static visibility and more about engagement, data, and experience design.
Ticketing and hospitality: pricing strategy, premium inventory, and customer experience are crucial. Hospitality can become a major profit center for global events when corporate demand is strong.
Merchandising and licensing: depends on the clarity of identity, cultural resonance, and perceived authenticity.
Digital products: subscriptions, behind-the-scenes content, membership programs, fantasy products, collectibles, and data-driven fan relationship management.
2.2 Cost Structures and Risk Drivers
Sports events also have distinctive costs:
Operations and security: staffing, crowd management, policing coordination, technology systems, and emergency preparedness.
Venue and infrastructure: temporary upgrades, transport readiness, accessibility, broadcasting facilities, training sites.
Event delivery complexity: logistics, volunteer systems, accreditation, scheduling, athlete services, medical readiness.
Reputational risk costs: scandals and failures produce long-term brand damage that can reduce sponsorship, rights value, and fan trust.
A crucial insight in event economics is that who pays is often different from who benefits. Rights-holders may capture global revenue while hosts absorb local costs. Local businesses may benefit from tourism while residents bear congestion. Therefore, evaluation must consider stakeholder distribution.
2.3 Economic Effects for Hosts and Destinations
For host cities and countries, events are often justified through:
Tourism and hospitality spending: visitors, accommodation, food services, transport, entertainment.
Destination branding: global visibility that can influence future tourism and investment perception.
Urban improvements: infrastructure projects that may accelerate development if aligned with real local needs.
Capability development: building a skilled event workforce, improving governance, and strengthening local sport systems.
However, credible evaluation must avoid simplistic claims. Event benefits vary depending on the event scale, existing infrastructure, crowd profiles, displacement effects (tourists who avoid the city during the event), and post-event utilization of venues.
Implication for sports managers and policymakers: event economics is not only about “impact.” It is about designing the event so that benefits are real, measurable, and aligned with long-term capability.
3) Branding–Economics Integration: The Conversion Engine
Branding and event economics connect through a conversion engine that can be understood in three steps:
Step 1: Meaning Creation (Symbolic and Cultural Capital)
The event or organization must stand for something credible: excellence, tradition, innovation, national pride, inclusion, lifestyle, or youth culture. This meaning is built through performance, storytelling, rituals, and consistent governance.
Step 2: Attention Capture (Social Capital and Media Dynamics)
Meaning must travel. Media distribution, platform partnerships, influencer ecosystems, and fan networks shape how widely meaning spreads. In modern sport, attention is increasingly multi-platform and personalized.
Step 3: Monetization and Reinvestment (Economic Capital)
Once attention exists, monetization channels include rights sales, sponsorship, hospitality, digital memberships, merchandise, and tourism. Reinvestment choices then determine whether growth strengthens long-term brand equity or damages it.
This engine explains why some organizations grow sustainably while others experience a boom-and-bust cycle. A brand can capture attention quickly, but if governance is weak or fan trust collapses, symbolic capital falls and monetization becomes harder.
Key tension: short-term monetization vs long-term legitimacyManagers must protect competitive integrity, fairness, and authenticity while pursuing growth. A brand that feels “sold out” may generate revenue today but lose emotional loyalty tomorrow.
4) World-Systems Dynamics in Global Sport: Upgrading, Dependency, and Strategy
World-systems theory helps clarify why global event economics often concentrates value:
Elite rights-holders and dominant competitions may control the most valuable media inventory.
Sponsors often prefer events with stable brand safety, global reach, and predictable governance.
Semi-peripheral markets may rely on hosting and investment to accelerate visibility.
A host can use events as an upgrading strategy by building capability: training local staff, improving infrastructure planning, professionalizing governance, and strengthening domestic leagues. But if the strategy is only to “rent prestige,” the host may face dependency: imported formats, external consultants, and limited long-term ecosystem impact.
A realistic upgrading strategy requires:
linking events to domestic sport development,
planning venue use after the event,
investing in workforce and governance,
building repeatable hosting capacity rather than one-off delivery.
Implication: global event strategy should be judged by whether it strengthens local capability and industry structure, not only by short-term tourism peaks.
5) Institutional Isomorphism: The Template Trap and Its Consequences
Modern sport increasingly uses standardized commercial and operational templates:
tiered sponsorship packages,
similar fan zones and festival formats,
similar “legacy” language,
similar governance reforms,
similar digital engagement tools.
These templates are not always negative. Standardization can increase professionalism, reduce uncertainty, and meet stakeholder expectations. Yet the template trap appears when organizations import the outer form of “best practice” without adapting it to their identity and capacity.
Consequences of the template trap:
Weak differentiation: fans struggle to articulate what makes the event unique.
Commoditized sponsorship: partners compare events like interchangeable advertising products.
Fragile legitimacy: if operational delivery fails, copied narratives collapse quickly.
The solution is strategic separation:
Non-negotiables: integrity, safety, athlete welfare, financial accountability, and transparent governance.
Signature elements: local culture, storytelling style, rituals, design language, fan interaction norms, and community involvement.
Implication: the most valuable sports brands often combine global professionalism with local authenticity.
6) Measurement: What Sports Managers Must Measure (and What They Often Miss)
A repeated weakness in event planning and sports branding is measurement that is either too narrow or too vague.
Common narrow metrics:
short-term ticket revenue,
media impressions,
social media follower counts.
Common vague claims:
“global exposure,”
“legacy,”
“tourism boost.”
A credible measurement system should include:
Brand equity indicators
trust and integrity perception,
authenticity and community belonging,
reputation resilience under adversity,
fan advocacy (likelihood to recommend),
sponsor satisfaction and renewal intent.
Economic indicators
rights and sponsorship yield per audience segment,
fan lifetime value (attendance, subscription, merchandise, repeat engagement),
hospitality margin and service quality outcomes,
operational efficiency and risk incidents.
Host and legacy indicators
workforce skills development and employment outcomes,
venue utilization and community access post-event,
participation increases in grassroots sport,
stakeholder satisfaction (residents, local businesses).
Implication: without a balanced measurement system, managers may optimize for short-term visibility while undermining long-term legitimacy.
Findings: Managerial Propositions and Practical Implications
Proposition 1: Sports brands are portfolios of capital, not communication assets
Brand strength is built through the accumulation and conversion of economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital. Communication is only one mechanism. Governance, integrity, and fan experience are equally brand-building.
Managerial implication: brand strategy must include integrity systems, athlete welfare, customer experience design, and community relationships—not just marketing campaigns.
Proposition 2: Global event economics is primarily a distribution problem
Events create value, but value is distributed unevenly. Many public controversies emerge because costs and benefits fall on different groups.
Managerial implication: map stakeholders before bidding or hosting. Clarify who pays, who benefits, and which outcomes are contractually protected.
Proposition 3: Rights and sponsorship monetization depends on legitimacy and differentiation
Rights buyers and sponsors pay more when the event is trusted and distinctive. Scandals reduce the risk-adjusted value of rights. Generic events struggle to command premiums.
Managerial implication: invest in transparency, integrity, and distinctive identity design as revenue strategy, not as “soft” reputation management.
Proposition 4: Imitation increases legitimacy but can destroy uniqueness
Institutional isomorphism makes organizations look professional, but excessive imitation reduces emotional attachment and sponsor differentiation.
Managerial implication: adopt global standards for compliance and safety, but protect signature elements that express authentic culture and values.
Proposition 5: Legacy is credible only when operationalized as capability
Legacy becomes meaningful when it is translated into workforce development, governance upgrades, venue utilization plans, and sustained community programs.
Managerial implication: assign legacy KPIs to accountable owners, fund them realistically, and connect them to domestic sport ecosystem growth.
Proposition 6: The strongest growth strategies are multi-cycle, not one-off
One-off event ROI thinking often misses long-term brand and capability impacts. Sustainable strategies treat events as part of a multi-year growth portfolio.
Managerial implication: evaluate event decisions across multiple cycles using a balanced scorecard: financial, brand, stakeholder, and capability outcomes.
Proposition 7: Fan relationship management is now a core economic capability
Modern fan engagement is not only content; it is relationship infrastructure that supports subscriptions, repeat attendance, merchandise, and sponsor activation.
Managerial implication: build fan data and membership systems ethically and transparently, focusing on trust and value exchange rather than extraction.
Conclusion
Sports management is increasingly the management of meaning and money together. Branding provides the symbolic and cultural foundation that makes audiences care, sponsors invest, and communities participate. Event economics provides the mechanisms through which that meaning becomes sustainable value—through rights, sponsorship, hospitality, tourism, and long-term capability.
Using Bourdieu’s theory, we see that sports organizations compete for different forms of capital and must manage conversion without destroying authenticity. Using world-systems theory, we see that global sport is unequal, and hosting strategies must focus on upgrading local capability rather than depending on borrowed prestige. Using institutional isomorphism, we understand why strategies converge and why managers must protect differentiation while meeting legitimacy demands.
The practical lesson is simple: growth that weakens trust is not growth; it is value extraction.The organizations that succeed over time will be those that align brand promises with operational reality, measure what matters, distribute value credibly, and treat global events as platforms for capability—not just spectacle.
References
Aaker, D.A., 1996. Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press.
Aaker, D.A., 2012. Building Strong Brands. 20th anniversary ed. New York: Free Press.
Andreff, W. and Szymanski, S. (eds.), 2006. Handbook on the Economics of Sport. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Bourdieu, P., 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P., 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Chalip, L., 2004. Beyond impact: A general model for sport event leverage. In: Ritchie, B.W. and Adair, D. (eds.) Sport Tourism: Interrelationships, Impacts and Issues. Clevedon: Channel View Publications, pp. 226–252.
Cheng, B., 2025. Investigating the relationships between professional football brand communication strategies, brand equity, and consumer behaviour. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 26(1), pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-06-2024-0123
Cornwell, T.B., 2008. State of the art and science in sponsorship-linked marketing. Journal of Advertising, 37(3), pp. 41–55. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367370304
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp. 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
Giulianotti, R., 2015. Sport: A Critical Sociology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hoye, R., Smith, A., Nicholson, M. and Stewart, B., 2018. Sport Management: Principles and Applications. 5th ed. London: Routledge.
Keller, K.L., 2013. Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education.
King, A., 2017. The End of the Terraces: The Transformation of English Football in the 1990s. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Maguire, J., 2011. Globalization and Sport: Beyond the Stereotypes. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mishra, A., Yousaf, A. and Gannon, M., 2024. Sport team reputation as a strategic source of brand equity. Journal of Brand Management, 31(1), pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-023-00315-6
Müller, M., 2015. What makes an event a mega-event? Definitions and sizes. Leisure Studies, 34(6), pp. 627–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2014.993333
Parent, M.M. and Smith-Swan, S., 2013. Managing Major Sports Events: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Preuss, H., 2004. The Economics of Staging the Olympics: A Comparison of the Games 1972–2008. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Preuss, H., 2015. A framework for identifying the legacies of a mega sport event. Leisure Studies, 34(6), pp. 643–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2014.994552
Ratten, V., 2020. Sport entrepreneurship: Developing and sustaining an entrepreneurial sports culture. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(4), pp. 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-020-00667-5
Roche, M., 2000. Mega-events and Modernity: Olympics and Expos in the Growth of Global Culture. London: Routledge.
Sardi, A., 2025. Economic impact analysis and stakeholder value creation in major cycling events. Administrative Sciences, 15(2), pp. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15020045
Sarpong, A., 2025. Sports sponsorship effectiveness, brand image and purchase intention among football fans. Journal of Global Sport Management, 10(1), pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/24704067.2024.2349876
Smith, A., 2012. Events and Urban Regeneration: The Strategic Use of Events to Revitalise Cities. London: Routledge.
Szymanski, S., 2010. The Comparative Economics of Sport. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wu, Y.F., 2025. Sponsorship effectiveness and consumer responses in esports events: An elaboration likelihood approach. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 26(2), pp. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-09-2024-0189
Xu, H., 2025. Sport events’ impact and legacy on residents’ quality of life: A scoping review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 7, pp. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2025.1298742
Zimbalist, A., 2015. Circus Maximus: The Economic Gamble Behind Hosting the Olympics and the World Cup. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Comments